June 25, 2008

Climate Change and The Trib

I can't believe these guys are still making this argument. From the Trib's editorial board:

There's yet more evidence that global warming alarmists are scared to death that the jig is up on their orchestrated efforts to foist entire landfills of junk science on a very gullible public.

Later on in the editorial:

But these days, even his agency's own data should be muzzling the beaks of the Chicken Littles free-ranging on the global warming barnyard. After all, GISS' own data show the Earth's temperature not only has been static over the last decade but actually has been falling. [italics in original]

It's that last part that caught my eye. No where in the editorial do they say where (other than "GISS' own data") they got that information. The part of the sentence that should have jumped out at you is this one:

...over the last decade...

As scientists track climate change over centuries I guess it is possible for a decade here and there to be static in comparison. But let's take a look at the actual real-life data from GISS and see if we can make some sense out of The Trib's editorial expertise.

First there's this:

Now here's the data from the last decade (as far as I can cut and paste):

Notice how the last decade's data (the black squares) are all in the same relative area? Notice how the first one and the last one are in basicall the same place?

That MUST prove that the temperature over the last decade has been static.

Never mind the near constant upward sweep from 1945 or so. Or the general upward sweep from 1910 or so.

No no. Because on this graph, the data from the last decade looks static, that proves that the science of climate change is, in the words of the meteroligical experts at the Trib's editorial page, "junk science."

38 comments:

John K: Yah, there is no evidence that global warming is being caused by man, even it exists. This is about big business, GE and one of their subsidiares, NBC and MSNBC, making money. Gore left the WH with 2 million. He is now worth 100 million. The additional income came from selling global warming to the stooges on the left. LMAO All the while polluting more in one speaking foray than I do in my entire life. Gore is grateful to you lefties for supporting his enriched lifestyle. LOL LOL LOL LMAO

I can't answer for neocons, but paleoconservatives are wary of global warming alarmism because it will likely lead to massive of expansion of the federal government and interference with the market. Most would argue that even if humans contribute significantly to global warming and we're on a collision course with doom, the kinds of solutions offered by most liberals are too socialistic. One counter solution offered by paleoconservatives, specifically libertarians, would involve treating pollution as a property rights issue. That is, if somebody's pollution harms my property, I have the right to sue them for compensation. Thus, market forces and risk aversion would reduce pollution.

Well, John K inadvertently answered the question. It is about big business. If the US acknowledges climate change is occurring and is caused by our activities, it pretty much has to say what it will do about it. The options for doing things involve trading carbon credits and raising fuel standards, things that the right is convinced will cripple American business and ruin the economy. And to be fair, even small steps may involve higher prices (energy and thus everything else) as well as lifestyle changes Americans may find uncomfortable. For example, in addition to moving back into the cities, into Europeans style townhouses, and riding bikes, we will have to hold our cigarettes in that awkward French style, and wearing berets. Damn you, Al Gore (and your Nobel prize).

The year 2005 was the warmest year in over a century, according to NASA scientists studying temperature data from around the world.Nice that 2005 is now the hottest year as 1998 lost that distinction due to someone finding that NASA did not correct a Y2K bug.Recent US Temperature Numbers Revised Downwards TodaySo how does NASA now "prove" Global Warming?Investigate Hansen and NASA: Agency Is Doctoring Temperatures In an Effort to Vindicate Global Warming TheoriesLet me explain -- no, there is no time. Let me sum up: NASA's temperature records are growing farther and farther away from everyone else's as NASA routinely-- and without offering any explanations why -- "adjusts" old temperature readings downward and new temperature readings upward, all in an effort to show rising temperatures where satellite readings show none.

John K. says: Nope, 1933 was the warmest year in the 1900's. Dust bowl and all that. Since no lefty is alive today, who bothers to remember that. Hence the graph is wrong. If there is no time left, as the left claims, then why is Gore still flying around in his private jet and driving an SUV. Can't be that dire. No this about Gore and GE and money. Look at who makes all those curly light bulbs we are now required to have. Gore followed the M Moore model and realized there is money to be made off the 'I hate Bush crowd."In 5 years the left will find a new pet rock, deny they ever said anything about global warming and Al Gore; Well he will retire to his basement and admire his Nobel Peace Prize and say "I had them all along." LMAO

If the debate is settled, SS.Why are the believers of anthropogenic Global Warming (Al Gore) unwilling to debate with anyone who disagrees with them.Why change Global Warming to Climate Change?Why claim Intellectual property when someone wants to see to the code behind the climate computer models?

I predict that in 50 years, that today climate models will be seen in the same light as predicting the future from chicken bones or Paul R. Ehrlich's population bomb.

Because, cathcatz, the darned hippie fucking liberals were ... correct. As was the case with the Iraq war, tax cuts for the rich, abstinence education, stolen elections, George W. Bush being a dumbass, and a slew of other things.

I mean, it's amazing, isn't it? The same people who so vociferously advocated for an unprovoked war based on the flimsiest of evidence will scream at the top of their heads with their fingers jammed firmly in their ears about the "hoax" of global warming and the role of humans in bringing it about. Ironically, they will point to flimsy evidence and made up stories to support their view, but ignore the mounds and mounds of physical and modeling evidence that indicates it is indeed real and going to have an untold impact on the future of this country and billions around the world.

The planet goes through temperature fluctuations. We're in a warm trend influenced by people. It's a fact that the global temperature has gone up compared to the average of the past few thousand years.

John K: And shitrock confirms what I have said. This debate is not over although the left can't stand being challenged on this subject. They usually talk among themselves and then all nod in agreement as their newest pet rock, Gore, tells them to. The graph is skewed. We have been warming since 13,500 BCE with some periods of cooling such as 1300 AD to 1870. Gore and GE stand to make a ton of money, (hey that was funny because Gore weighs a ton) off the left. And if this is so dire, I fully expect to see Gore et al flying commercial with the common folk and driving cobalts.

From a recent National Scientific Assessment:Our understanding of climate change continues to grow, enabling scientists to draw increasinglycertain conclusions about its causes and impacts. For example, in their most recent assessmentof climate change science, the IPCC concluded that it is unequivocal that the averagetemperature of Earth’s surface has warmed recently and it is very likely (greater than 90%probability)2 that most of this global warming is due to increased concentrations of humangeneratedgreenhouse gases. Several lines of evidence, including those outlined in the followingsections, point to a strong human influence on climate. Although these individual lines ofevidence vary in their degrees of certainty, when considered together they provide a compellingand scientifically sound explanation of the changes to Earth’s climate—including changes in surface temperature, ice extent, and sea level rise-observed at global and continental scales over the past few decades.Climate Change is real. The US GOVERNMENT says so.

Retired Millhunk: Do you remember a Three Stooges episode when they were plumbers. The water starting to come out of the light sockets? That's the Tribs Editorial Board. A pathetic crew they are.Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard, I think their names are.

Mein Heir does not seem eager to accept my invitation to debate. Anyone? Anyone? Buehler?Just following the example of the Goracle.Why Won’t Al Gore Debate?There are three points in my first post. Start refuting/debating them.

Why are the believers of anthropogenic Global Warming (Al Gore) unwilling to debate with anyone who disagrees with them.

First, you are mistaken that this is belief. A belief is when one holds an opinion that cannot be confirmed by experience or experimentation. For example, the idea that the Christian God is any more real than the Zeus, Rama, Dilbert, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a belief. Global warming (AKA climate change) CAN and HAS BEEN confirmed by experience and experimentation. A belief cannot by definition be proven or disproven. Therefore, climate change started as an hypothesis and is now a theory. It was never a belief.

Your first link leads to a web page that basically SUPPORTS the fact of climate change, saying things like, "[The GISS database] has consistently shown more warming than any other data base." Read: MORE warming than any other database. In other words, all databases show warming, GISS shows more.

It's hard to refute your second link, which doesn't work.

As for your third link: Climate change is occuring whether whether James Hansen is a partisan, a Democrat, a shill, or a Malay orangutan. The VAST majority of climatologists tell us that it is happening at a frightening pace, and the ones who don't are employed by the oil companies.

There are three points in my first post. Start refuting/debating them.

By the way, China and India are adding more cars and factories everyday. I forget whether it is two years or four year from now that China will have as many cars as we do now. Probably a lot of them are more efficient, although not all. But still, there should be no doubt that we have forfeited a lot of the control we might have had on climate change. If China chooses not to regulate development and growth, they can point to our example. Conservation is a personal virtue, not a basis for policy.

And even if the global temperature has stayed flat since 1998 (even if), was it rising before 1998? If so, is it a good thing to stay at a higher level? And that is "even if".